Using Expert Knowledge Effectively: Lessons from Species Distribution Models for Wildlife Conservation and Management

  • Chris J. Johnson
  • Michael Hurley
  • Eric Rapaport
  • Michael Pullinger
Chapter

Abstract

The spatial and temporal relationships between organisms and their environments are fundamental to both theoretical and applied ecology. The heterogeneous distribution of organisms in space and time will influence most ecological relationships, including predation, competition, and resource use, and, ultimately, population dynamics and evolution (Turchin 1996). Recognizing that the science and practice of ecology involves a consideration of spatial processes, much recent research has focused on formally representing and quantifying the spatial and temporal relationships between organisms and their environments (Morales et al. 2010). One prominent area of investigation for landscape ecologists has been the development of statistical models and associated analyses that empirically represent those relationships (Elith and Leathwick 2009). This set of methods has become known as “species distribution models” (SDMs). Guisan and Thuiller (2005) define SDMs as “… empirical models relating field observations to environmental predictor variables, based on statistically or theoretically derived response surfaces.”

Keywords

Permeability 

References

  1. Al-Awadhi SA, Garthwaite PH (2006) Quantifying expert opinion for modeling fauna habitat distributions. Computational Stat 21:121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allouche O, Tsor A, Kadmon R (2006), Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J Appl Ecol 43:1223–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bender LC, Roloff GJ, Haufer JB (1996) Evaluating confidence intervals for habitat suitability models. Wildl Soc Bull 24:347–352Google Scholar
  4. Bio AMF, De Becker P, De Bie E, et al (2002) Prediction of plant species distribution in lowland river valleys in Belgium: modeling species response to site conditions. Biodivers Conserv 11:2189–2216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce MS (2010) Presence-only data, pseudo-absences, and other lies about habitat selection. Ideas Ecol Evol 3:26–27Google Scholar
  6. Bowman J, Robitaille JF (2005) An assessment of expert-based marten habitat models used for forest management in Ontario. For Chron 81:801–807Google Scholar
  7. Brooks RP (1997) Improving habitat suitability models. Wildl Soc Bull 25:163–167Google Scholar
  8. Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araujo MB, Hirzel AH (2004) Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgman MA, Breininger DR, Duncan BW, Ferson S (2001) Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecol Appl 11:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chetkiewicz CLB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clevenger AP, Wierzchowski J, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2002) GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning for mitigation passages. Conserv Biol 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Sims-Castley R, et al (2003) The expert or the algorithm? Comparison of priority conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and reserve selection software. Biol Conserv 112:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crosetto M, Tarantola S (2001) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation. Internat J Geogr Inf Sci 15:415–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czembor, CA, Vesk, PA (2009) Incorporating between-expert uncertainty into state-and-transition simulation models for forest restoration. For Ecol Manage 259:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doswald N, Zimmerman F, Breitenmoser U (2007) Testing expert groups for a habitat suitability model for the lynx Lynx lynx in the Swiss Alps. Wildl Biol 13:430–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EBA Engineering (2002a) Ecosystem mapping with wildlife interpretations to support oil and gas pre-tenure planning in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area—wildlife report. British Columbia Ministry of Energy & Mines, Fort St. JohnGoogle Scholar
  17. EBA Engineering (2002b) Predictive ecosystem mapping (PEM) with wildlife habitat interpretations to support oil and gas pre-tenure planning in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. British Columbia Ministry of Energy & Mines, Fort St. JohnGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) Smarts and smarter: improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Dec 60:306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elith J, Graham C (2009) Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanations and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the measurement of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franklin J (2010) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gal T, Stewart T, Hanne, T (eds) (1999) Multicriteria decision making—advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  24. Grech A, Marsh H (2008) Rapid assessment of risks to a mobile marine mammal in an ecosystem-scale marine protected area. Conserv Biol 22:711–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gu W, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv 116:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guisan A, Thuiller, W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guisan A, Zimmermann, NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135:147–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hebblewhite M, Haydon DT (2010) Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 365:2303–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hiddink JG, Jennings S, Kaiser MJ (2007) Assessing and predicting the relative ecological impacts of disturbance on habitats with different sensitivities. J Appl Ecol 44:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hurley MV, Rapaport EK, Johnson CJ (2007) A spatial analysis of moose–vehicle collisions in Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, Canada. Alces 43:79–100Google Scholar
  31. Hurley MV, Rapaport EK, Johnson CJ (2009) Utility of expert-based knowledge for predicting wildlife-vehicle collisions. J Wildl Manage 73:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson CJ, Boyce MS, Case RL, et al (2005) Quantifying the cumulative effects of human developments: a regional environmental assessment for sensitive Arctic wildlife. Wildl Monogr 160:1–36Google Scholar
  33. Johnson CJ, Gillingham, MP (2004) Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to variation in expert opinion. J Appl Ecol 41:1032–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson CJ, Gillingham, MP (2005) An evaluation of mapped species distribution models used for conservation planning. Environ Conserv 32:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson CJ, Gillingham, MP (2008) Sensitivity of species distribution models to error, bias, and model design: An application to resource selection functions for woodland caribou. Ecol Model 213:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill, EH, et al (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manage 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson CJ, Seip DR, Boyce MS (2004) A quantitative approach to conservation planning: Using resource selection functions to identify important habitats for mountain caribou. J Appl Ecol 41:238–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karl JW, Heglund PJ, Garton EO (2000) Sensitivity of species habitat-relationship model performance to factors of scale. Ecol Appl 10:1690–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhnert PM, Martin TG, Griffiths SP (2010) A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models. Ecol Lett 13:900–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Lia TF (eds) (2004) The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  41. MacDougall C, Baum F (1997) The Devil’s advocate: a strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qual Health Res 7:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacMillan DC, Marshall K (2006) The Delphi process—an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data poor environments. Anim Conserv 9:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitchell MS, Zimmerman JW, Powell RA (2002) Test of a habitat suitability index for black bears in the southern Appalachians. Wildl Soc Bull 30:794–808Google Scholar
  44. Morales JM, Moorcraft PR, Matthiopoulos J (2010) Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 365:2289–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mouton AM, De Baets B, Goethals PLM (2009) Knowledge-based versus data-driven fuzzy habitat suitability models for river management. Environ Modell Softw 24:982–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murray JM, Goldizen AW, O’Leary, et al (2009) How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabies Petrogale penicillata. J Appl Ecol 46:842–851Google Scholar
  47. Newbold T, Reader T, Zalat S, El-Gabbas A, Gilbert F (2009) Effect of characteristics of butterfly species on the accuracy of distribution models in an arid environment. Biodivers Conserv 18:3629–3641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Leary RA, Low-Choy S, Murray JV, et al (2009) Comparison of three expert elicitation methods for logistic regression on predicting the presence of the threatened brush-tailed rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata. Environmetrics 20:379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearce JL, Cherry K, Drielsma M (2001) Incorporating expert opinion and fine-scale vegetation mapping into statistical models of faunal distribution. J Appl Ecol 38:412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landsc Ecol 25:1547–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radies D, Coxson D, Johnson CJ, Konwicki K (2009) Predicting canopy macrolichen diversity and abundance within old-growth inland temperate rainforests. For Ecol Manage 259:86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raxworthy CJ, Martinez-Meyer E, Horning N, et al (2003) Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 426:837–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ready J, Kaschner K, South AB, et al (2010) Predicting the distribution of marine organisms at the global scale. Ecol Model 221:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. RIC (1999) British Columbia wildlife habitat ratings standards. V.2.0. Resources Inventory Committee, Wildlife Interpretations Subcommittee, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.Google Scholar
  55. Roloff GJ, Kernohan BJ (1999) Evaluating reliability of habitat suitability index models. Wildlife Soc Bull 27:973–985Google Scholar
  56. Rose NA, Burton PJ (2009) Using bioclimatic envelopes to identify temporal corridors in support of conservation planning in a changing climate. For Ecol Manage 258:S64–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rubin ES, Stermer CJ, Boyce WM, Torres SG (2009) Assessment of predictive habitat models for bighorn sheep in California’s Peninsular Range. J Wildl Manage 73:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sorensen T, McLoughlin P, Hervieux D, et al (2008) Determining sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou. J Wildl Manage 72:900–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sutherland WJ (2006) Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of methods. J Appl Ecol 43:599–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tirpak JM, Jones-Farrand DT, Thompson FR III, et al (2009) Assessing ecoregional-scale habitat suitability index models for priority landbirds. J Wildl Manage 73:1307–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turchin P (1996) Fractal analysis of movement: a critique. Ecology 77:2086–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1981) Standards for the development of habitat suitability index models. Department of the Interior, Washington, Ecological Services Manual 103Google Scholar
  63. Yang XF, Skidmore AK, Melick DR, et al (2006) Mapping non-wood forest product (matsutake mushrooms) using logistic regression and a GIS expert system. Ecol Model 198:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris J. Johnson
    • 1
  • Michael Hurley
    • 2
  • Eric Rapaport
    • 3
  • Michael Pullinger
    • 4
  1. 1.Ecosystem Science and Management ProgramUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  2. 2.The Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Architecture and Planning, School of PlanningDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  4. 4.School of Geography and Environmental StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations